Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Membership Elgibility for the SUVCW

Expand Messages
  • waltsfrench75
    ... US service and a subsequent US pension is probably enough for the SUVCW to admit a descendant whose soldier had CS service.  Other evidence of
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com, Jeffry
      Burden <richburd6165@...> wrote:
      >
      > Well, to close the loop on this, Keith's opinion is that subsequent
      US service and a subsequent US pension is probably enough for the
      SUVCW to admit a descendant whose soldier had CS service.  Other
      evidence of involuntary service is possible, but it would be a very
      difficult needle to thread.
      >  
      > As far as the soldier himself getting into the GAR, it's not
      clear.  The biggest problem may have been the soldier getting
      blackballed at the Camp level, before going to a national level.  
      >  
      > Jeffry
      >

      Its been a while since I've checked back to this group. This thread
      really turned interesting.

      I no longer have my copy of Mary Dearing's wonderful history of the
      GAR, "Veterans In Politics", but I do remember reading a reference
      that some southern GAR posts were lenient in allowing members who had
      Confederate service before and after their Federal service. I think
      its important to remember that the GAR started out as a fraternal
      organization and like most the members of the "lodge" have the final
      say in who is allowed in. The political importance of the GAR came
      later, not much later, but later nonetheless.
    • Jeffry Burden
      Exactly - as anyone with experience in hereditary groups knows, less-then-perfect qualifications can get massaged/smoothed over at the local level if the
      Message 2 of 17 , Oct 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Exactly - as anyone with experience in hereditary groups knows, less-then-perfect qualifications can get massaged/smoothed over at the local level if the members want someone bad enough.  Not everything, but a lot.  
         
        Jeffry

        --- On Tue, 9/30/08, waltsfrench75 <waltsfrench75@...> wrote:
        From: waltsfrench75 <waltsfrench75@...>
        Subject: [20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment] Re: Membership Elgibility for the SUVCW
        To: 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 9:59 PM

        --- In 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com, Jeffry
        Burden <richburd6165@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > Well, to close the loop on this, Keith's opinion is that subsequent
        US service and a subsequent US pension is probably enough for the
        SUVCW to admit a descendant whose soldier had CS service.  Other
        evidence of involuntary service is possible, but it would be a very
        difficult needle to thread.
        >  
        > As far as the soldier himself getting into the GAR, it's not
        clear.  The biggest problem may have been the soldier getting
        blackballed at the Camp level, before going to a national level.  
        >  
        > Jeffry
        >

        Its been a while since I've checked back to this group. This thread
        really turned interesting.

        I no longer have my copy of Mary Dearing's wonderful history of the
        GAR, "Veterans In Politics", but I do remember reading a reference
        that some southern GAR posts were lenient in allowing members who had
        Confederate service before and after their Federal service. I think
        its important to remember that the GAR started out as a fraternal
        organization and like most the members of the "lodge" have the final
        say in who is allowed in. The political importance of the GAR came
        later, not much later, but later nonetheless.


      • williegrout
        I did some research looking into the GAR here in Worcester, MA and actually found that there was a rival civil war veteran organization known as the Union
        Message 3 of 17 , Oct 14, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I did some research looking into the GAR here in Worcester, MA and
          actually found that there was a rival civil war veteran organization
          known as the Union Veterans League. While the GAR invited all US
          civil war veterans, the UVL membership only allowed those who were
          in actual combat.

          It thought this might be of interest because my SUVCW camp was the
          2nd one formed in the city #2 AA Goodell was formed by one of these
          two and my camp #25 Willie Grout by the other. Not enough material
          yet found to prove it.




          --- In 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com, Robert
          Moore <cenantua@...> wrote:
          >
          > Jeffry -
          >  
          > "The interesting question is, is it possible to join through the
          service of an ancestor who served in the CS armies, then in the US
          armies, if it could somehow be shown that his CS service
          was "involuntary?"
          >  
          > Yes - the key factor being that you would have to show service was
          not only involuntary but, as I mentioned earlier, he literally "did
          not bear arms voluntarily against the U.S." It can be proven, but
          usually the only way to do so officially to fit the standards of the
          SUVCW, is through the proof offered in a pension. 
          >  
          > "Would it be enough that he was drafted into the CS armies?  I
          suspect not, unless there was evidence he resisted service and
          skedaddled as soon as practical."
          >  
          > You are correct, the answer here is "no." In my experience with
          this issue, being drafted is not proof sufficient to show that he
          did not bear arms voluntarily. As an example, I know of a person who
          was a member of the Virginia Militia. He skeedaddled after 1st
          Manassas and then headed North to Pa. Interestingly, in Pa, he was
          drafted into the Union army. He applied for a pension and was denied
          because of service (yes, even in the militia he was denied) in the
          Confederate army. He worked around this, and in time, provided
          sufficient information to prove that he "did not bear arms
          voluntarily against the U.S."... and got his pension. 
          >  
          > Sorry for the over and over again with "did not bear arms
          voluntarily with the U.S." but this phrase was the one that was
          repeated time and time again in the pension situation and was the
          key factor to prove in order to get on the better side of the
          government.
          >  
          > Robert
          >  
          >  
          >
          > --- On Mon, 9/29/08, Bonnie M. Smolskis <bsmolskis@...> wrote:
          >
          > From: Bonnie M. Smolskis <bsmolskis@...>
          > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment] Membership
          Elgibility for the SUVCW
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 9:05 PM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > I think you are right Jeffry.  You could always try and
          email  National Headquarters in Harrisburg, PA regarding the
          questions, if anyone could give you an answer  headquarters should
          be the one.
          >  
          > Bonnie
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message ----
          > From: Jeffry Burden <richburd6165@ yahoo.com>
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
          > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:58:04 PM
          > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Membership
          Elgibility for the SUVCW
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > I know lots of folks who belong to both organizations, through the
          service of different ancestors.  The interesting question is, is it
          possible to join through the service of an ancestor who served in
          the CS armies, then in the US armies, if it could somehow be shown
          that his CS service was "involuntary" ? 
          >  
          > Would it be enough that he was drafted into the CS armies?  I
          suspect not, unless there was evidence he resisted service and
          skedaddled as soon as practical.
          >  
          > Jeffry
          >
          > --- On Mon, 9/29/08, Bonnie M. Smolskis <bsmolskis@yahoo. com>
          wrote:
          >
          > From: Bonnie M. Smolskis <bsmolskis@yahoo. com>
          > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Membership
          Elgibility for the SUVCW
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
          > Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 8:23 PM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          > Hey Robert,
          >  
          > Did you attend the National Encampment in Peabody, MA ? 
          >  
          > Reading the rules below a person could belong to both  sides
          depending which side the ancestor was on as long as a record could
          be shown as proof of their honorable service.
          >  
          > Bonnie
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message ----
          > From: Robert Moore <cenantua@yahoo. com>
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
          > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:38:40 PM
          > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Membership
          Elgibility for the SUVCW
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Thanks!
          >  
          > Robert Moore
          > Commander, Luray-Carlisle Reunion Camp #1881, SUVCW
          > Patriotic Instructor, Dept, of md., SUVCW
          >
          > --- On Mon, 9/29/08, Bonnie M. Smolskis <bsmolskis@yahoo. com>
          wrote:
          >
          > From: Bonnie M. Smolskis <bsmolskis@yahoo. com>
          > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Membership
          Elgibility for the SUVCW
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
          > Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 6:07 PM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Here are the membership rules for the Sons of Union Veterans of
          the Civil War
          >  
          >
          >
          > Membership Eligibility
          >
          >
          > The Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War is a patriotic and
          educational organization, similar to the Grand Army of the Republic.
          It was founded on November 12, 1881 and incorporated by Act of
          Congress August 20, 1954. The Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil
          War is the legal heir to and representative of the Grand Army of the
          Republic.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Hereditary Eligibility (Member & Junior) and
          > Non-hereditary Eligibility (Associate)
          > Member (and Junior): A male descendant, 14 years of age (6 to 14
          for Juniors), who:
          >
          > is directly descended from a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or member of
          the Revenue Cutter Service (or directly descended from a brother,
          sister, half-brother, or half-sister of such Soldier, etc.) who was
          regularly mustered and served honorably in, was honorably discharged
          from, or died in the service of, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps or
          Revenue Cutter Service of the United States of America or in such
          state regiments called to active service and was subject to the
          orders of United States general officers, between April 12, 1861 and
          April 9, 1865;
          >
          > has never been convicted of any infamous or heinous crime; and
          >
          > has, or whose ancestor through whom membership is claimed, has
          never voluntarily borne arms against the government of the United
          States.
          >
          > Associate: Men who do not have the ancestry to qualify for
          hereditary membership may become Associates if they:
          >
          > Demonstrate a genuine interest in the Civil War; and
          >
          > Can subscribe to the purpose and objects of the SUVCW
          > Although an Associate is not required to meet the lineage
          requirement of a Member, he is still subject to the second and third
          provisions of hereditary eligibility. An Associate may vote and hold
          any office except those of Commander-in- Chief, Senior Vice
          Commander-in- Chief, Junior Vice Commander-in- Chief, National
          Secretary, National Treasurer and Commanding Officer of the Sons of
          Veterans Reserve. Associates may not exceed one-third of the total
          membership of the Camp at the time of election.
          >  
          > Bonnie
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message ----
          > From: Jeffry Burden <richburd6165@ yahoo.com>
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
          > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:48:30 AM
          > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Thanks :
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Don's question below included the given that the soldier
          voluntarily bore arms against the US.  If he could show the soldiers
          C.S. service was involuntary, I'm not sure how that would have
          affected GAR eligibility. 
          >  
          > You are correct that a soldier's membership (or not) in the GAR is
          irrelevant to a descendant's eligibility to join the SUVCW, assuming
          the ancestor's service record doesn't otherwise disqualify the
          descendant.  
          >  
          > Jeffry
          >  
          > --- On Mon, 9/29/08, Robert Moore <cenantua@yahoo. com> wrote:
          >
          > From: Robert Moore <cenantua@yahoo. com>
          > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Thanks :
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
          > Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 10:10 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Now, the matter of qualifying for the G.A.R. may be different,
          but, again, I think that the key point was to show that one did not
          bear arms voluntarily. I can't recall the source, but I have read
          where G.A.R. members did not hold galvanized Yankees in high regard
          (for that matter, I have also read where G.A.R. members did not
          generally hold officers of USCT troops in high regard). However,
          having an ancestor who did not hold membership in the G.A.R. is not,
          to my knowledge, a restriction on the ability to use that ancestor
          as a qualifying factor in joining the SUVCW.
          >  
          > Robert
          >  
          >  
          >  
          >
          > --- On Mon, 9/29/08, Jeffry Burden <richburd6165@ yahoo.com> wrote:
          >
          > From: Jeffry Burden <richburd6165@ yahoo.com>
          > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Thanks :
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
          > Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 9:59 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To my understanding, the veteran would have been ineligible for
          membership in the Grand Army of the Republic, and his descendants
          would be ineligible for membership (through his service, at least)
          in the SUVCW.
          >
          > Jeffry
          >
          > --- On Mon, 9/29/08, DCCaughey@aol. com <DCCaughey@aol. com> wrote:
          >
          > From: DCCaughey@aol. com <DCCaughey@aol. com>
          > Subject: Re: [20thassachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Thanks :
          > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
          > Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 9:52 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Robert,
          >  
          > I don't think I initially phrased my question well.  What if
          someone is in BOTH categories?  They voluntarily bore arms against
          the US, but after being captured took an oath of allegiance and was
          sent west (Minnesota sticks in my mind as one place) during the war
          to fight against Indians.  Since they fought for the US during the
          war, they would be eligible for a pension, but would they be
          eligible for SUVCW membership?  They have proof of being Union
          veterans....
          >  
          > Don
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > _
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          > Find ith !
          >
          >
          >
          > Find phone numbers fast with the New AOL Yellow Pages!
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.